Vanity Fair thinks Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for Senator from Texas is Kennedyesque.
Really? Does Vanity Fair really think O’Rourke abandoned a young woman, trapped in his car, to drown in a Texas creek? Does the magazine really think O’Rourke nakedly lied about a Supreme Court Justice nominee to smear him during a confirmation hearing?
That’s an interesting connection for the magazine to draw.
The Saturday Wall Street Journal had a piece that worried about President Donald Trump’s decision to add more tariffs to People’s Republic of China’s goods just prior to another round of trade talks with the PRC.
[T]he decision’s timing risks deepening the already bitter trade fight by starting another tit-for-tat round of tariffs.
And
The tariffs are bound to complicate—if not derail—talks with top Chinese officials, which are currently scheduled in Washington for Sept 27 and Sept 28, say people familiar with the plans.
Another interpretation, carefully ignored by the authors, is that in any conflict, it’s necessary to keep pressure on the opposing side while negotiations occur. The battlefield shapes the talks, and the talks shape the battlefield–the battlefield encompasses both the talks and the conflict.
On whose side is the current Pope? What is his purpose, his goal?
First, the Pope condones covering up—even delaying a “conference” for chit-chat about the abuse for as long as possible—massive child abuse by Catholicism’s priests and bishops.
Now we have the Pope saying the Catholic Church—the Vatican—doesn’t even need to be the authority that selects the Church’s bishops.
…Catholic concession in a far-reaching deal between Rome and the Vatican announced Friday. The Vatican has agreed to recognize as legitimate seven Chinese priests who had been excommunicated by Rome for accepting their bishop hats without Vatican approval. Two bishops who had remained faithful to Rome will retire to make room for bishops more to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s liking.
What’s going on in the Catholic Church?
Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for Texas Senator Beto O’Rourke wants a cop fired. At a rally last Friday, O’Rourke was asked whether Officer Amber Guyger should be fired. You remember the case: the officer seems to have entered the wrong apartment, mistaking if for her own, saw a man in the still darkened apartment, the man did not respond to Guyger’s commands, and she wound up shooting him. O’Rourke’s response to the rally-goer’s question:
I don’t understand given the actions how anyone can come to any other conclusion.
Really? The evidence the NLMSM has chosen to publish—a subset of the evidence the police are able to release in the middle of an ongoing investigation—certainly appears damning. But where is the public record of all of the evidence? When was Guyger’s trial and conviction? When did it become the American way to begin punishing a person even before an investigation is completed, much less a trial held?
O’Rourke wasn’t finished. He also
questioned why when everyone is seeking facts, the warrant was released which detailed that marijuana was found in that apartment.
Apparently, only some facts need be sought out, especially early on when it’s unclear—except to the special few—which facts matter.
Of course, it’s of a piece with the Dear Colleague Letter sent out by the Obama Education Department that made it permissible for a school to “convict” a male student on the basis of a female student’s accusation while denying the male student’s right to legal representation or even the opportunity to cross-exam the accuser or accuser’s witnesses. It’s of a piece with the Progressive-Democrats’ hue and cry over current DoEd Secretary Betsy DeVos’ unmitigated gall in insisting on actual due process for the accused in educational facilities.
And it’s of a piece with a Progressive-Democrat President’s insistence—immediately after he’d admitted he knew none of the facts—that a cop had acted stupidly.
This is due process as the Progressive-Democrats would have it. This is Beto O’Rourke’s view of due process for those accused of wrong-doing. Remember this, this fall.
Deutsche Welle reported on Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s visit last Friday with People’s Republic of China President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang in the PRC. A couple of things jumped out at me that are separate from the emphasis the article put on the visit and the aid the PRC has promised Maduro. Maduro tweeted
We began our state visit to the People’s Republic of China, paying tribute to its founder, the Great Helmsman, Mao Tse Tung. His example and revolutionary struggle marked the twentieth century.
That was in connection with this:
At the start of his state visit, Maduro bowed three times to honor Chairman Mao in Tiananmen Square.
Xi happily went along with that. He is, indeed, bringing back Mao’s policies and ruling techniques.